This might be a stupid topic but I have never seen it done. In the following photo http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=627377 it states Here we have the A318, completing a roll, who said airliners couldn't go upside down!Did it really do a roll at the Airshow? Can other aircraft do the same thing? wouldn't there be too much stress on the aircraft; wings, ect.?

Well, back in the 70's the Boeing 707 (Called 320 Dash 80 then) was doing a demonstration in Seattle when the chief test pilot performed a few barrel rolls to the amazement of the crowd, and the scared shock of Boeing's CEO.

Since you haven't heard of it, check out the Discovery Wings Channel at any point during the day just when a show is over (usually at 2-3 minutes before the hour). This is when they show historic moments in aviation. I'm sure you'll see it at some point during the day. They repeat it (and a few other events) all day, everyday.

I was at Farnborough on the day that photo was taken and there was no A318 roll or upside down flight.
A `wing-over' (at the top of a climb) maybe but from where I was standing I don't think it went past 90 degrees.

A barell roll, when correctly executed, will maintain more or less 1 g on the airframe the whole time. This means no problems with structural stress or fuel feed. I don't see why any plane should not be able to handle this.

A one-point roll will be considerably more difficult, since it requires more manoeuvrable planes, and the g forces change during the roll. Most airliners will probably not be able to handle this.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."

As I understand it, like the 707 roll in the 50s (that footage does kick ass, BTW) Any plane is capable of the barrel roll if done correctly.

IIRC another 707 crashed when a pilot attempted a barrel roll during a test flight - hence the reason they're generally not encouraged. I have read this accident report but am not sure where to locate it now (probably somewhere around here: http://amelia.db.erau.edu/ec/ntsbaar.htm#67") - apparently there was not enough evidence to definitively point to a barrel roll but it was obvious reading the report that that was what the investigators believed.

I'll keep searching for this report and if I find it I'll post a direct link...

However, on modern planes w/ computerized flight controls, doesn't the software prevent excessive angles of bank, etc, which would make the roll impossible, not for the airframe, but the operator?

On some modern planes, yeah. Depends on what you mean by "modern", though, too - some airplanes have bank angle warnings but no bank limiter. You won't find a bank limiter in a DC-9-50 flying with Northwest today, for example.

Airliners are designed to be inherently stable, though, which means if you invert one it will pitch down (or up, depending on your perspective) pretty rapidly and in some cases uncontrollably. This has happened many times in accidents where the equivalent of a barrel roll was performed in an uncommanded manner - the airplane may have been saved if only there was more altitude to play with, but it's nearly impossible to come out of a barrel roll at anywhere close to the same altitude you went into it with in almost any airliner I could think of. So generally once you get beyond a 90 degree bank angle it becomes practically impossible to either keep the nose up or even maintain altitude if you do - "flying upside down" is futile because the wings aren't shaped to generate lift in that orientation.

The stress of a barrel roll itself wouldn't kill an airframe but the stress of the airspeed you'd gain in the resulting dive, combined with the stress on the control surfaces required to keep a positive attitude would probably at least do some significant damage. The few examples I can think of where airplanes have entered rolls uncommanded and lived to tell about it (China Air off the California coast a while back, for example) have all resulted in major damage to the airplane.

In other words, airlines can roll, but it's not really something you want to do in any modern plane

I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!

On a self-gloss note, I've barrel-rolled a C152, C172, PA-28/235, Citabria, and Bormans' TF-51 after it was built by Square One Aviation.

Also single point rolled that same TF-51 over Lake Matthews, embarrassed to say that I didn't keep enough forward stick pressure on it and I let the nose come down on the last part of the roll. The G.I.B.S. was laughing at that as I was pulling out of that one!

Just a quick update to my post - it's been a long time since I've read about this incident so I may have confused a dutch roll 707 accident with a barrel roll (I didn't confuse the terms, just may have forgotten which type of roll was involved in the incident I had remembered). Anyway, I think this is the accident I had mentioned, though a dutch roll is a lot different than a barrel roll... still, note that the cause of the accident was bank angles that exceeded limits, leading to structural failure: http://aviation-safety.net/database/1959/591019-0.htm

I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!

Though all of the above is true - wouldn't using a commercial plane in such a manner void your warranty ? What I mean is that there are some planes that are certified for aerobatic maneuvers and some that are not. An airliner is not designed with the possibility of a deliberate roll in mind. Airline manufacturers are not (to my knowledge) required to show to the FAA and JAA that their products would survive such treatment. Something might not work.

What that means is that though most airliners could do it, it would be foolish to do this and to expect the same level of safety ordinarily expected in civil aviation. That level of safety can only be expected by those who use such planes to do what they were made and certified to do. That does not only go for planes, but to many other highly complex products as well.

At last check, the FBW Airbuses had bank limiters so they can't exceed about 35 degrees in a roll if I remember correctly. Although an A320 did get briefly inverted once during an aborted approach to Moscow (can't remember what airline it was). The pilot didn't like the pitch angle on climbout during the aborted approach and applied some foreward stick pressure to lower the nose. The computer responded by continuing to pitch the nose up until the plane practically flipped over on its back. It almost looked like a sloppy loop on the data recorder playback, but thankfully the plane righted itself. So it has happened with an Airbus, just not intentionally.

The 1 gee roll in a big jet is nothing new. Word is that somebody also did it in a B-47 jet bomber during the early 50s and that has a much more spindley looking wing then what the Dash 80 and 707 had. In addition to the inverted flight picture that was taken on the Dash 80 flight, there is also footage of it taken from the ground during the event shot by a spectator watching the boat races.

The TWA 727 that broke Mach 1 did a barrel roll prior to the resulting Mach dive and survived (and was eventually returned to service with another carrier). Boeing builds them tough - The 707 (PA), 727 (TW) and 747 (China Airlines) have all broken Mach 1 and survived intact.

MxCtrlr
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.

DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(

Ok folks, let me play the idiot here, but we are talking about Roll not Barrel Roll. All Aircraft Roll, just like they Pitch. Roll and Pitch are terms for bank and accent/decent. Im just a Private Pilot, but even in the 172 and a Piper Warrior there are turn coordinators, attitude indicators, and etc. My point being, all aircraft roll.

A 73G has done a barrell-roll before. It was done on the 1st 73G built and that is now owned by WN. That barrell-roll was a stunt done at the Seattle SeaFair hydroplane race halftime show. I dont exactly remember the year but it was before WN took delivery of their 1st 73G.